in a battle for Eeyore's soul! Save him! For the
dark side hath cookies!

Member

Join Date: Dec 2008

Posts: 426

Representing:

Yes, Libya is indeed the biggest domino yet.

It's that not juss b/c Muammar Gaddafi and his sons are all nuts, and hoping beyond hope that this whole ordeal will end better for them than it did for Hosni Mubarak, but mainly b/c whoever in the American gov't is able to manipulate the Gaddafi's into submitting assets (ie - oil, arms, monetary currency, information currency in terms of political espionage & stock market manipulation, international connections, etc.) by way of using a 3rd party to give them asylum (Hugo Chavez?), will have some serious bragging rights come the 2012 election (Obama, Palin, etc.). This provided they end up looking like a full hero in providing safety for Libyans citizens, scoring assets that benefit the American population (and also solidifying partnerships w/big business come 2012 election time, behind closed doors of course) and leaving some left over for Libyans, and keeping the fact that they helped the Gaddafi's get asylum under wraps.

Obama's only tangible skill is his ability to 'spin' the truth, so fuck the facade of Obama's speech tonight, as what he said is not consistent w/his reputation in international circles, especially w/NATO. If the U.S. was really the leader of the coalition, then why has the whole operation's leadership been transferred to Cdn. Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard, instead of an American, or a general of a country whose leader was in bed w/Obama in the 1st place (Cameron of the UK, Sarkozy of France; Harper in case you don't know, couldn't give a fuck about huckster Obama)? And if Obama was really willingly transferring leadership w/the reason being the economic toll that replacing the missiles would have on American taxpayers, then why did he send so many American sorties and missiles in the 1st place when the mission began (if not but to keep up the facade of America 'caring' for the rest of the world...w/oil of course - I'm inclined to believe its provision for the next regime to feel indebted to him and not NATO, for oil pricing's sake)? Why not spread the responsibility in the 1st place among all NATO countries participating, especially since America is behind the 8ball more than other countries since the '08 economic collapse? And why were missiles targeting Muammar Gaddafi's compound -endangering Libyan civilians while doing so- when NATO said before & after that attack that targeting Muammar isn't at all part of the program (and lets remember the US bombed the same compound in 1986 under Reagan)?

No. I don't believe any of the shit I juss heard, mixing in half-truths & lies to mask the fact that he's made a rescue mission into a political issue (as I'm sure Palin and others have; why else did reports come in of the Gaddafi's repeatedly calling so many different people w/White House connections, seeking asylum?). I'm much more inclined to believe that Obama is trying to straddle the fence as he did w/Hosni Mubarak (who didn't have oil, but had much more monetary wealth & international connections; both of which are good assets to solidify partnerships for coming elections) until he couldn't do it anymore, and now has been playing both sides of the fence w/the Gaddafi's, using airstrikes on the compounds to put pressure on the Gaddafi's to give him assets before its too late for him to get things from them like was the case w/Mubarak.

In short, I feel much better for Libyans, the rest of North Africa, and NATO (and even for them fuckin Gaddafi's too!), now that Obama isn't in charge of the operation, but Charles Bouchard is. Get to the business of saving lives w/o any pretense. No pretty speeches for pretexts of getting better oil prices.